There are no "inconsistencies", no "misleading". Just opinions, the
expression of which is what discussion lists like this are for.
Steve Burch continues:
> the hobby was consistently told that the PAS was not there just to serve
and that is still the case, Steve. It is not. But a lot of the arguments
which so far have been offered have indeed emerged from two camps. One (the
loudest) is the "detectorists", afraid this means changes for the way they
do their hobby as is totally clear from what they write on their own forums.
The other is the London Office of PAS who first turned to the former for
support because (understandably) they don't want their jobs to go to
Birmingham. My feeling is that Lord Renfrew aligns himself more with the
latter group rather than the former. Presumably the CBA supports the PAS as
one would hope it would support any other valuable archaeological
institution which it feels is in trouble.
Nevertheless, unless I am missing something, more closer integration of the
PAS into the museum network seems to me justifiable and cost effective when
you consider it is NOT there to provide outreach to 8000 tekkies, but 54
million other members of the public too. In what way is THEIR access to the
facilities offered by the PAS going to be compromised by streamlining its
operations in the way that has been suggested?
I say again, let us wait for the MLA to do their review in consultation with
interested parties, present the results, present concrete propositions and
weigh up the pros and cons. Knee-jerk reactions on the basis of rumours
whipped up by interested parties are simply unproductive.
We are going to look pretty silly if the discussion of the MLA review next
summer produces a resolution which has a better chance of working than
trying to move the whole lot to the BM and we've got a 7000 signature
petition showing we "all" want it to go to the BM.
> an insult to the CBA itself who is open supporting the PAS...<
well, fortunately British archaeology is no totalitarian society. Let us
make a distinction between supporting the existence of what is said to be
archaeology's largest outreach (or commenting on how it could provide better
outreach), and supporting some suggestion that it should be dismantled and
rebuilt in the BM. Its difficult to see how the latter would work (or how
the transfer could procede), and you will note, nobody has (yet) expanded on
how that could operate. And yet we are asked, please, to sign up to it
without asking those questions.
> I am sure we all have our own reasons for supporting the PAS..<
Well, there is a difference between supporting the principle, agreeing or
not with the way the current team have been going about it, and supporting
the wording of either the EDM or the petition. There is no specific
"anti-PAS brigade". (I'm more of a "PAS-should-reform" bloke myself, but
this EDM is intended to preserve the status quo, not lead to a new quality).
Let's leave the discussions of cost-effectiveness of the PAS for another
time. We've been through it before. I note though that a "PAS Rep" was this
morning busy explaining it all to "metal detectorists" on UKDN. If
"archaeology's biggest outreach" cannot be bothered to explain it to us too
in equally forthright terms, then really there is something wrong isn't
there? I'd say the PAS wanting support might at least have had the decency
to come here and talk with us about it and answer any questions some here
might have and not leave it up to a few "metal detectorists" and the staff
of a sister organization to put its case.